Trial reportBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Low-cost versus high-fidelity pediatric simulators for difficult airway management training: a randomized study in continuing medical education.
Trial report in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- High Fidelity Simulations to Improve Pediatric Airway Management: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Innovative Pediatric Simulator for Difficult Airway Management Training.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2026Article
- Simulation Platforms to Train and Assess Pediatric Acute Care Procedural Skills: A Scoping Review.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- Perceived learning gaps in paediatric anaesthesia training: A cross-sectional survey.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Difficult airway simulation-based training for anaesthesiologists: efficacy and skills retention within six months.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-fidelity (HF) pediatric patient simulators are expensive. This randomized study aimed to compare the quality and educational impact of a full-scale simulation workshop with an HF infant simulator (SimBaby™, Laerdal) or with a low-cost (LC) simulator composed of an inert infant manikin with SimBaby™ software that displays respiratory/hemodynamic parameters on a monitor for medical education in pediatric difficult airway management.
methodsAfter written informed consent, anesthetists and emergency or ICU physicians participated in teams (4 to 6 participants) in a training session that included direct participation and observation of two difficult intubation scenarios. They were randomized into two groups (HF group, n = 65 and LC group, n = 63). They filled out a simulation quality score (SQS, 0 to 50), self-evaluated their anesthetists' non-technical skills (ANTS) score (15 to 60), and an educational quality score (EQS, 0 to 60) immediately (T0, main criteria), as well as 3 (T3) and 6 (T6) months after the training session.
resultsWe enrolled 128 physicians. Direct participation SQS (39 ± 5 HF group versus 38 ± 5 LC group), observation SQS (41 ± 4 H F group versus 39 ± 5 LC group), ANTS scores (38 ± 4 HF group versus 39 ± 6 LC group), T0 SQS (44 ± 5 HF group versus 43 ± 6 LC group), T3 and T6 SQS were not different between groups.
conclusionOur low-cost simulator should be suggested as a less expensive alternative to an HF simulator for continuing medical education in pediatric difficult airway management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.